Harry Reid. Lying Crapweasel.

MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you about the war in Iraq. In April of 2007, this is what you said: "I believe myself that ... this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything." Were you wrong?

[Reid, channeling his inner Noam Chomsky ..."David, David, David... deconstructing the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition based solely upon the words 'were', 'you', and 'wrong' is an exercise in futility. Your question raises problems of phonemic and morphological analysis that cannot be adequately contextualized by any commonly understood grammatical system. Intelligent people understand this instinctively."]

SEN. REID: David, ...the surge helped, of course it helped. But in addition to that, the urging of me and other people in Congress and the country dictated a change, and that took place. So...

But David is not to be distracted by shiny things, the blighter. There's this disturbing construct called "reality" that keeps popping up like Whack-a-Mole:

MR. GREGORY: But you said the surge was not accomplishing anything. Even Barack Obama said last fall that it exceeded everyone's expectations and succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.

Reid, however, is having none of this "reality" nonsense. History is infinitely malleable and the public's memory can always be wiped clean by those willing to lie long enough and often enough. Just ask the New York Times:

Barack Obama said the surge of American forces in Iraq has ``succeeded beyond our wildest dreams,'' though Iraqis still haven't done enough to take responsibility for their country.

``The surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,'' Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, said in a recorded interview broadcast tonight on Fox News's ``The O'Reilly Factor'' program.

[REID AGAIN, STILL DIGGING FURIOUSLY] Petraeus added to the surge some very, very interesting things that changed things. He said a lot -- just simply numbers of troops is not going to do the deal. What we need to do is work with the Iraqi people, which we haven't done before. That's where the Awakening Councils came about, as a result of David Petraeus' genius.
He's done--he will be written about in the history books for years to come.

Things...that changed... things. Who knew? And thank God that brilliant General Betrayus came along to save us from The Chimp, who had planned to only send in more troops? What a disaster THAT would have been!

Even Gen. Keane didn't expect the new strategy to work so fast. "It's a stunning turnaround, and I think people will study it for years because it's unparalleled in counterinsurgency practice," he says. "All the gains we've achieved against al Qaeda, the Sunni insurgency, the Iranians in the south are sustainable" -- a slight pause here -- "if we're smart about it and not let them regroup and get back into it."

Gen. Keane wants to make sure people understand why the surge worked. "I have a theory" about the unexpectedly fast turnaround, he says. "Whether they be Sunni, Shia or Kurd, anyone who was being touched by that war after four years was fed up with it. And I think once a solution was being provided, once they saw the Americans were truly willing to take risks and die to protect their women and children and their way of life, they decided one, to protect the Americans, and two, to turn in the enemies that were around them who were intimidating and terrorizing them; that gave them the courage to do it."

He adds that the so-called Sunni Awakening, and the effective surrender of Shia radical Moqtada Sadr and his Mahdi Army, depended upon the surge. "I'm not sure [the Sunni Awakening] would have spread to the other provinces without the U.S. [military] presence. We needed forces that we didn't previously have for the Sunnis to be able to rely on us to protect them." Sadr saw his lieutenants killed in the American push, and didn't want to share their fate.

Looking ahead, Gen. Keane still considers a robust American ground force "the secret to success" in Iraq. "It is a myth for people to assert that by pulling away from the Iraqis, by pulling away from the Iraqi political process, that somehow that becomes a catalyst to do things that they would not do because of our presence. That is fundamentally wrong. It is our presence that is helping Iraqis move forward."

In his view, the U.S. ought to focus on cementing recent gains. First comes helping the Sunnis back into the political system. The majority Shiite government hasn't yet agreed to hold provincial elections later this year, and until it does and those polls are held, the U.S. can't withdraw any more troops, he says.

Sectarian tensions remain a worry. Last month in the northeastern city of Baquba, government forces detained 1,000 Sunnis, mostly members of the Sons of Iraq, a nationwide militia funded by the U.S. and composed of many former Sunni insurgents. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki promised to vet and take a fifth of the 90,000-strong force into his security services, but as with the provincial elections, he hasn't yet delivered. "It appears that Maliki is using the guise of security to enhance his political base and to diminish his political opponents," says Gen. Keane, citing the Baquba incident. "That is a danger and that is something we should not tolerate."

Another potential threat looms from Iran. Though Tehran and its surrogates were hammered in the Maliki government's successful spring offensive on Basra, "we know they're coming back," says Gen. Keane. Iran wants a weak Iraqi central government unaligned with America. "We know that they intend to come back on the kinetic side, attack U.S. forces exclusively with less attacks, but more spectacular. I don't believe for a minute they're going to be able to resurge and be successful as long as we stay on top of it, keep our head in the game, maintain our force presence in the south."

The surge turned things around on another difficult front, Washington. "Despite the fact that President Bush did preside over a strategy that was failing for three plus years, and he has been criticized for that," says Gen. Keane, "he also deserves a significant amount of credit because all around him people were advocating a failed strategy, particularly key leaders around him, and he had the wherewithal to make a tough decision that flew certainly in the face of political opposition even in his own party."

Gen. Keane says he understands why there was resentment among the Joint Chiefs at seeing the president change course against their wishes and follow a retired general's recommendations on strategy and staffing in a war zone. But he considers his role perfectly appropriate. "In my mind, I think a president has a right to seek advice and counsel any place he chooses," he says. "I certainly wasn't forcing myself on them."

The U.S. came "within weeks or months" of defeat in Iraq in 2006, he says. The consequences of that were "unacceptable" for the region, "not to speak of an institution that I loved." And what about the military chiefs who thought the extra battalions and extended service tours would be too much of a strain on American forces? "When people talk about stress and strain on a force, the stress and strain that would come from having to live with a humiliating defeat would be quite staggering."

Shorter Harry Reid:

"Even after 19 months of declining violence, it's WAY too soon to say the Surge 'succeeded' or the war is won now. However, I was NOT wrong to say the Surge had 'failed' and the war was 'lost' in April of 2007 before we even had 1/3 of the Surge troops in place."

"Even though Barack Obama specifically stated that it was "the Surge" that had succeeded "beyond our wildest dreams", he wasn't talking about "the Surge" per se because that would make me look like a horse's ass who would tell any lie, no matter how egregious, rather than admit he was wrong."

"Which I unequivocally am."

Posted by Cassandra at January 8, 2009 08:03 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2621

Comments

I actually heard someone dismiss the Surge as the source of success in the Iraq theater, saying it was the Anbar Awakening that got things turned around. As if Glenda the Good Witch did that thing with the snowflakes that helped Dorothy and her friends wake up in the poppy field in Wizard of Oz.

I will admit that "lying" and "crapweasel" may have been redundant, counselor :p

The theory you refer to, MathMom, is the fairy-tale-du-jour in the Reality Based Community.

*sigh*

Of course it was these same people who touted Thomas Ricks' classified memo saying Anbar was 'irretrievably lost' as "proof" the administration was lying to us and Herr Reid was right... at the very same time the Awakening was going on :p

Whatever. Thank God for intrepid journalists willing to "leak" memos that are classified so that they don't get leaked in major newspapers. The world needs more brave tru... err... useful idiots.

Crapweasel maneuver for today is the U-turn on Burris. Apparently Reid talked to the man, found him clean and articulate, and decided to quit worrying about the whole Blago scandal aspect, which is so last week.

Part two (link at bottom of Part 1, but read both parts!!!) of it talks about Petraus and how Boyd's air combat techniques inspired much wider changes in tactical and strategical ideas, starting with the Gulf War.

This piece is highly recommended. It's one of the best by possibly the best long-form political essayist around.

Straight up, I would love to grab old harry scumbag by his 200 dollar necktie and punch his face in. He is after jimmy, baracky, chuckie one of the most useless human beings ever to walk the face of the Earth and he needs a serious ass kicking.

I was sitting around, lamenting that the lying crapweasel, SanFranNan, Hillary the NutCracker, and The One have four of the key positions in our government, and the next four years could be the worst of my life.....and then, prophetically, I clicked on a link one of my troopers sent me....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqxW6E24Jh8

I think people, especially the aforementioned three, would be well advised to heed the message.

"I actually heard someone dismiss the Surge as the source of success in the Iraq theater, saying it was the Anbar Awakening that got things turned around."

And that someone would basically be correct. The fact is, The Surge did not add that many incremental boots on the ground to have alone made the difference in the increase in security. There were numerous factors, including a willingness of US-Forces to cooperate with factions they previously had considered hostile, pay-offs of certain local leaders (you do realize the various 'Awakening Groups' are paid by the US, right?), but most importantly, a rejection of al Queada by Iraqi's which destroyed their base of popular support.

Really, the "Surge" should have been called "Petraeus is Smart *and* Lucky". Because the US military policy changes during the Surge are a virtual 180 from the way US forces operated early in the Occupation. He made excellent decisions in changing how the forces operated, working closer with the local population, handing out soccer balls, etc.

But if you really want to believe that the addition of 20k troops was what changed the popular attitudes of 28 million people, that's cool. Over-simplified views of that region of the world have always been popular...

Didn't think so. The vast majority (that's about 80%) of the violence in Iraq has all occurred within 30 miles of Baghdad.

Oh. But the Anbar Awakening somehow convinced people in a part of the country completely unaffected by said "Awakening" that the day was saved, not the troops that we blanketed that area with, not the changes in tactics that accompanied the increase in troops in a geographically compact area.

Got it. Let me know when you're ready to try again. FWIW, I have a map right next to my desk.

The Surge came after the fact. The true success was the Al Anbar Awakening and the strategies implemented by the likes of Lt. Col. Sean MacFarland that turned the tide against al Queda. The Surge was a political ploy. And Reid was bumbling and absurd in his response to Gregory. Exactly how anyone who suggested that the Surge didn't succeed would be perceived by everyone, including the press. So much for a liberal biased media. As witnessed, Gregory et al, wanted to hook their personas onto the Surge. that is what worked. And once again, Barack Obama answered the political question quite appropriately. That is why he won. Among many reasons....

The Surge came after the fact. The true success was the Al Anbar Awakening and the strategies implemented by the likes of Lt. Col. Sean MacFarland that turned the tide against al Queda.

So what you're saying is, the tide had already turned back before we implemented the Surge, and if we hadn't bothered things would have turned around in time anyway?

Wow. That makes liars out of an awful lot of Democrats who said the war was a losing proposition. That was, if I recall, the argument against the Surge in the first place - don't throw more resources into a lost cause (you do remember, don't you? Thomas Ricks - classified memo on Anbar province - "irretrievably lost"... blah, blah, blah.... what would we do without reporters who leak priceless info to the public so we know what the Pentagon is trying to "hide" from us. :p